Writ jurisdiction barred by efficacious statutory appeal; petitioner directed to pursue the appellate remedy before the Tribunal.

A writ petition under Article 226 was held not maintainable where an efficacious statutory appeal under Section 177 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act was available and had not been exhausted. The Court declined to entertain writ jurisdiction in the presence of the alternate appellate remedy, and the petitioner was left free to pursue the appeal before the Tribunal, which was directed to consider the contentions on merits in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was maintainable despite the availability of an appeal under Section 177 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act.

Analysis: The statutory appellate remedy had not been exhausted. The Court declined to permit invocation of writ jurisdiction when an efficacious appeal lay to the Tribunal. The petitioner was left at liberty to approach the Tribunal, which was to consider the contentions on merits in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed, leaving the petitioner to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

---